Point of Law : To ensure due payment to the drawee of a cheque, the court trying the offence is empowered under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act to impose a sentence of imprisonment which may extend to two years or with fine, which may extend to twice the cheque amount or both.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Instant Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement and order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Contai, District-Purba Medinipur in Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2019, wherein the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed on contest and the impugned order dated 7.12.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur in C.R case No.198 of 2015 was affirmed. In the impugned judgement. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Contai directed the complainant/petitioner to surrender before the learned trial court within 10 days from date of the judgment.

2. In his application for criminal revision the petitioner urged that the judgement and order passed in the Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2019 is bad in law, illegal and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is further contended that while passing the judgement the court ought to have scrutinized the source of Rs.3,50,000/-alleged to have been paid by the complainant/opposite party no.1 to the accused/petitioners as loan accommodation. It is also urged that learned Judicial Magistrate had erred in law in convicting the petitioner and subjecting him to simple imprisonment for three months, with a further direction to pay a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-to the complainant/opposite party no.1 under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned order and/or quashing of the order.

3. On 8.11.2019 the petitioner/revisionist had prayed for his release on bail. After considering the submission the petitioner was granted interim bail till 22.11.2019 on condition that he deposited Rs.3,50,000/-before the learned trial court within the said period. The opposite party no.1 was given liberty to withdraw the said amount complying all formalities before the trial court. The petitioner appeared on consecutive dates when the matter was fixed for hearing. On conspectus of the facts and circumstances and the situation arising out of non-representation of the petitioner, the criminal revision is taken up for hearing at the behest of the opposite party no.1. It is worthwhile to note that opposite party no.2/State has not been represented as the case initiated out of a private complaint.

4. Learned advocate for the opposite party no.1 referred to the judgement and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in C.R Case No. 198 of 2015 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act giving rise to Criminal Appeal No 3 of 2019 and submitted that by consecutive judgments the petitioner has been found guilty of the offence and was convicted and sentenced thereof. The fact of the case as it appears from the petition of complaint of opposite party no.1 is that a loan accommodation of Rs. 3,50,000/-was given to the petitioner/accused Tapan Kumar Ghosh on account of his daughter’s marriage. The petitioner in discharge of his debt issued a cheque dated 30.3.2015 in favour of the opposite party no.1 drawn, on Mugberia Central Cooperative Bank, Kalagachia Branch. The complainant presented the said cheque in his own account at the State Bank of India, Kalagachia Branch but the same was dishonoured due to insufficient fund. The Branch issued an information slip dated 6.4.2015 informing the opposite party no.1/complainant about the reason of dishonour. The petitioner was informed about the dishonor of the cheque and he requested the opposite party no. 1 to present the cheque once again. On such assurance the opposite party no.1 deposited the cheque again on 23.6.2015 in his account but the same was dishonoured for the second time due to insufficient fund. A demand notice was issued to the petitioner under registered post on 2.7.2015 which was received by the petitioner on 07.07.2015. The petitioner/accused neither replied to the notice nor made any payment within the pre